ELECTION  OF  SENATORS 
BY  THE  PEOPLE 


If  United  States  Senators  are  elected  By  tlie  people  Instead 
of  By  tlie  legislatures  tlie  people  sRould  Be  permitted  to  vote. 


The  constitutional  metliod  of  electing  senators  lias  worked 
well  for  one  hundred  and  twenty- two  years.  Why  experiment? 


SPEECH 

OP 

HON.  CHAUNCEY  M.  DEPEW 

OF  NEW  YORK 

IN  THE 

SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


TUESDAY,  JANUARY  24,  1911 


7G425— 9543 


WASHINGTON 

1911 


$  %  4.  9. 


SPEECH 

OF 

HON.CHAUNCEYI.DBPEW. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  joint  resolution 
(S.  J.  Res.  134)  proposing  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
providing  that  Senators  shall  be  elected  by  the  people  of  the 
several  States — 

Mr.  DEPEW  said: 

Mr.  President:  The  subject  under  discussion  is  a 
joint  resolution  entitled  “  Joint  resolution  proposing  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  providing  that  Senators 
shall  be  elected  by  the  people  of  the  several  States.” 

Who  are  the  people  of  the  several  States?  The  Con¬ 
stitution  leaves  us  in  no  doubt  on  this  question.  It  be¬ 
gins  with  the  immortal  declaration : 

We,  the  people  of  the  TJnitdd  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more 
perfect  union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity, 
provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote  the  general  welfare, 
and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  and  our  posterity, 
do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United  States 
of  America. 

The  fourteenth  article  of  the  Constitution  defines  the 
people  by  declaring  that — 

all  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States  and  subject 
to  the  jurisdiction  thereof  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and 
of  the  States  wherein  they  reside. 

The  fifteenth,  amendment  declares  that — 

the  rights  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not  be 
denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  by  any  State  on  ac¬ 
count  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

The  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  as  re¬ 
ported  from  the  Judiciary  Committee  and  now  before 
the  Senate,  seems  to  me  to  be  an  effort  under  the  guise 
of  popularizing  the  election  of  United  States  Senators 
to  permit  under  the  Constitution  the  States  to  disfran- 

o  76425—9543 


3 


J 

- 


<3t> 


chise  large  classes  of  their  electors.  Instead  of  provid¬ 
ing  that  Senators  shall  be  elected  by  the  people  of  the 
several  States,  it  virtually  denies  the  people  the  right  to 
elect  Senators  by  impairing  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth 
amendments  to  the  Constitution,  which  were  intended 
to  secure  the  elective  franchise  to  all  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  If  this  be  true,  then  we  are  paying  a 
tremendous  price  to  secure  a  change  in  the  present 
methods  of  electing  United  States  Senators.  The  Con¬ 
stitution  makes  the  following  provision  for  the  election 
of  Members  of  Congress : 

The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  Sena¬ 
tors  and  Representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by 
the  legislature  thereof;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any  time  by 
law  make  or  alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  places  of 
choosing  Senators. 

The  proposed  measure,  as  reported  by  the  committee 
and  now  before  the  Senate,  repeals  that  portion  of  the 
Constitution  as  to  the  election  of  Senators. 

When  the  Democratic  friends  of  the  proposed  amend¬ 
ment  are  asked  why  they  want  this  provision  of  our 
Constitution,  which  has  existed  for  a  hundred  and 
twenty-two  years,  repealed,  their  answer  is  that  under 
it  the  right  has  been  claimed  for  Congress  to  interfere 
with  the  elective  franchise  in  the  several  States.  In 
other  words,  under  it  Congress  has  endeavored  to  so 
legislate,  though  that  legislation  has  never  been  passed, 
as  to  permit  the  negro  to  vote  in  the  Southern  States, 
and  that  under  it  may  be  found,  wThen  the  question 
comes  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
authority  to  declare  the  laws,  which  in  one  form  or 
another  disfranchise  the  negro  vote  in  some  of  the 
States,  unconstitutional.  But  the  proposed  amendment 
which  declares — 


The  electors  in  each  State  shall  have  the  qualifications  requi¬ 
site  for  electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  legis¬ 
latures, 

76425—9543 


-a 35898 


4 


under  the  guise  of  giving  power  directly  to  the  people, 
permits  by  the  authority  of  the  Constitution  unlimited 
restrictions  upon  the  people’s  right  to  vote. 

In  several  States  negroes  and  some  others  are  not 
allowed  to  vote  for  members  of  the  most  numerous 
branch  of  the  legislature.  With  this  amendment  there 
is  no  limit  to  which  they  can  carry  this  exclusion. 

Now,  then,  read  the  language  of  the  proposed  amend¬ 
ment,  namely : 

The  electors  of  each  State  shall  have  the  qualifications  requi¬ 
site  for  electors  of  the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  State  legis¬ 
latures — 

and  then  repeal  section  4  of  Article  I  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  which  reads  as  follows: 

The  times,  places,  and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  Sena¬ 
tors  and  Representatives  shall  be  prescribed  in  each  State  by  the 
legislature  thereof;  but  the  Congress  may  at  any  time  by  law 
make  or  alter  such  regulations,  except  as  to  the  places  of  choos¬ 
ing  Senators — 

and  all  power  over  the  election  of  Senators  passes  from 
Congress  and  is  remitted  absolutely  to  the  States.  No 
matter  what  restrictions  the  State  may  place  upon  suf¬ 
frage,  no  matter  what  denials  of  the  right  of  suffrage 
may  result  from  the  action  of  the  States,  the  Senate  is 
powerless. 

During  the  eloquent  and  exhaustive  speech  of  the 
Senator  from  Maryland  [Mr.  Bayner]  a  colloquy  oc¬ 
curred  between  the  Senator  and  the  Senators  from 
Utah  [Mr.  Sutherland]  and  Nebraska  [Mr.  Brown], 
The  Senator  from  Maryland  then  strongly  intimated 
that  unless  in  connection  with  the  proposition  to 
change  the  mode  of  electing  United  States  Senators 
from  the  legislature  to  a  popular  vote  there  was  coupled 
a  repeal  of  section  4  of  Article  I  of  the  Constitution 
the  Southern  States  would  reject  the  wThole  proposition. 
As  a  further  illuminating  illustration,  southern  news¬ 
papers  which  are  sent  me  denounce  the  proposition  of 
the  Senator  from  Utah  as  an  effort  to  kill  the  resolu¬ 
tion  for  the  popular  election  of  Senators  by  loading 

70425—9543 


5 


the  proposition  down  with  unnecessary  amendments. 
They  do  not  state  what  this  alleged  unnecessary  amend¬ 
ment  is.  They  do  not  inform  their  readers  that  the 
amendment  of  the  Senator  from  Utah  is  simply  to  take 
out  of  the  pending  resolution  for  popular  elections  the 
part  whch  repeals  section  4  of  Article  I  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution.  They  simply  denounce  the  proposition  of  the 
Senator  from  Utah  as  an  obstruction  intended  to  pre¬ 
vent  the  change  in  the  method  of  electing  United  States 
Senators  from  the  legislature  to  the  people.  But  the 
whole  trend  of  their  comment  is  that  unless  the  repeal 
of  this  section  of  the  Constitution  which  has  existed  for 
122  years  is  coupled  with  the  resolution  for  a  popular 
vote  the  Southern  States  do  not  care  and  will  not  have 
the  proposed  amendment  engrafted  into  the  Constitu¬ 
tion.  In  other  words,  we  are  informed  that  the  under¬ 
lying  purpose  of  this  movement  is  to  take  away  from 
Congress  all  power  over  disfranchisement  by  State  laws 
and  remit  to  the  States  unlimited  authority  to  limit 
the  suffrage. 

There  are  300,000  colored  voters  in  the  State  of  New 
York.  I  can  conceive  of  nothing  which  would  affect 
them  so  deeply  and  arouse  them  so  thoroughly  as  a 
permanent  constitutional  disfranchisement  of  their 
brethren  by  the  votes  of  Republican  Senators.  I  am 
sure  before  the  debate  has  ended,  if  this  resolution  is 
adopted,  the  colored  voters  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  Kansas, 
New  Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania  wdll 
protest  in  so  effective  a  way  at  the  polls  as  to  be  felt 
all  over  the  country. 

This  resolution  virtually  repeals  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  amendments  to  the  Constitution.  It  validates 
by  constitutional  amendment  laws  under  which  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  constituting  in  the  aggregate  more 
than  one-tenth  of  the  electorate,  are  to  be  permanently 
deprived  of  the  right  of  suffrage.  There  is  no  pretense 
that  any  conditions  may  arise  in  the  future  under 
which  these  laws  will  be  liberalized  and  the  growing 

76425—9543 


6 


intelligence  of  the  negro  electors  will  be  recognized. 
These  laws  have  their  origin  in  a  fear  of  the  negro  vote 
in  those  States  where  it  is  equal  to  the  white  vote  or 
larger  than  the  white  vote.  But  they  are  urged  or 
passed  for  purely  political  purposes  in  States  where 
there  is  no  possible  fear  of  the  dominance  of  the  negro 
vote.  Maryland,  with  a  small  proportionate  negro 
vote,  has  tried  several  times  within  the  last  few  years 
to  disfranchise  the  colored  people  within  that  State, 
and  the  avowed  purpose  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the 
State  of  Maryland,  which  is  not  denied,  is  to  continue 
this  effort  until  they  have  succeeded  in  disfranchising 
this  vote.  The  Democratic  leaders  of  the  State  of 
Oklahoma  became  alarmed  at  the  enormous  immigra¬ 
tion  coming  in  there  from  the  Middle  West,  from  the 
great  States  of  Ohio,  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  Iowa. 
They  have  passed  laws  intended  to  prevent  the  negro 
from  voting  so  as  to  postpone  as  far  as  possible  the 
inevitable  Republieanization  of  the  State  of  Oklahoma 
which  wTill  result  from  this  immigration.  It  is  a  cu¬ 
rious  commentary  upon  our  forgetfulness  of  the  results 
of  the  war  for  the  Union  that  we  have  grown  indiffer¬ 
ent  to  such  an  extent  to  these  provisions  which  were 
made  the  permanent  results  of  that  struggle  by  being 
engrafted  into  the  Constitution.  It  becomes  a  subject 
of  earnest  study  and  of  serious  reflection  whether  if  it 
were  a  mistake  to  adopt  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth 
amendments  at  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  it  is  not  a 
greater  mistake  forty-five  years  afterwards  when  intel¬ 
ligence  and  education  have  made  such  progress  among 
these  people  to  so  impair  as  to  virtually  repeal  those 
articles. 

The  title  of  this  proposition  is  to  allow  the  people  to 
vote.  The  purpose  and  object  of  the  resolution  is  to 
permanently  prevent  the  people  from  voting  in  any 
State  where  a  dominant  power  or  oligarchy  wishes  to 
disfranchise  a  certain  portion  of  the  citizens  of  that 
State.  Now,  I  have  sympathized  with  the  conditions  of 

7G425— 9543 


7 


the  people  of  the  Southern  States  since  the  Civil  War. 
I  have  persistently  and  consistently  opposed  all  the 
drastic  measures  which  have  been  presented  to  interfere 
with  their  affairs.  I  was  not  in  favor  of  the  force  bill. 
I  was  not  in  favor  of  the  bill  which  passed  the  House  of 
Representatives  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  four¬ 
teenth  amendment  for  the  reduction  of  membership  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  proportion  to  the  re¬ 
duction  of  the  Negro  vote  in  several  States.  But  when 
it  comes  to  deliberately  voting  to  undo  the  results  of  the 
Civil  War,  when  it  comes  by  constitutional  amendment 
to  permanently  taking  from  10,000,000  people  the  re¬ 
wards  of  education  and  intelligence,  that  reward  being 
in  a  free  government  the  right  to  vote,  I  can  not  assent 
to  or  be  silent  upon  the  proposition. 

Six  years  ago  this  same  question  came  up  in  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  of  which  I  was  a 
member,  and  I  then  proposed  this  same  amendment  to 
the  resolution  wdiich  I  have  offered  here  and  which 
reads  as  follows: 

Senate  joint  resolution  134. 

Amendment  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  Depew  to  tbe  joint 
resolution  (S.  J.  lies.  134)  proposing  an  amendment  to  tbe 
Constitution  providing  that  Senators  shall  be  elected  by  the 
people  of  the  several  States,  viz :  On  page  2,  lines  5,  6,  7,  and 
8,  strike  out  the  words  “  The  electors  of  each  State  shall  have 
the  qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of  the  most  numerous 
branch  of  the  State  legislatures,”  and  in  lieu  thereof  insert 
the  following: 

“  The  qualifications  of  male  citizens  entitled  to  vote  for  United 
States  Senators  and  Eepresentatives  in  Congress  shall  be  uni¬ 
form  in  all  the  States,  and  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce 
this  article  by  appropriate  legislation  and  to  provide  for  the 
registration  of  citizens  entitled  to  vote,  the  conduct  of  such  elec¬ 
tions,  and  the  certification  of  the  result.” 

This  amendment  simply  says  that  if  the  people  are  to 
vote  for  the  election  of  United  States  Senators,  then  all 
the  people  recognized  as  citizens  under  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  shall  be  permitted  to  vote.  At  that 
time  this  proposition  of  mine  was  incorporated  into 

76425—^543 


8 


the  general  resolution,  and  had  the  unanimous  vote  of 
every  Republican  member  of  the  committee,  even  of 
those  who  were  in  favor  of  changing  the  method  of 
electing  United  States  Senators  from  the  legislature  to 
the  people.  When  it  was  adopted  the  resolution  was 
defeated  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Democratic 
members  of  the  committee.  But  when  I  offered  it  in 
our  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  it  commanded  only  one 
vote  beside  my  own. 

I  desire  to  call  attention  to  this  phase  of  the  subject 
and  to  challenge  discussion.  I  wonder  if  there  has  been 
upon  this  proposition  contained  in  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  amendments  to  the  Constitution  such  a  change 
in  public  sentiment  as  would  be  indicated  by  a  unani¬ 
mous  vote  six  years  ago  and  by  an  overwhelming  ma¬ 
jority  the  other  way  to-day. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  went  into 
operation  on  the  first  Wednesday  in  March,  1789,  and 
on  the  1st  day  of  March,  1911,  it  will  have  been  in  force 
for  122  years.  The  language  of  eulogy  has  been  ex¬ 
hausted  in  its  praise.  The  greatest  intellects  among 
the  statesmen  of  other  countries  have  given  it  com¬ 
mendation  beyond  any  other  instrument  which  ever 
came  from  the  hands  of  man.  The  United  States  has 
grown  from  a  fringe  of  settlements  along  the  Atlantic 
coast  to  its  present  imperial  position  among  the  nations 
of  the  world  in  liberty,  opportunity,  population,  and 
power  under  this  Constitution  practically  unchanged. 
With  these  122  years  of  achievement  to  its  credit  only 
an  imperious  necessity  can  justify  any  change.  That 
imperious  necessity  should  have  behind  it  the  practically 
unanimous  and  determined  voice  of  the  American 
people. 

Every  Senator  knows  that  the  votes  which  have  been 
cast  in  the  several  States  for  this  measure  have  been  so 
given  in  obedience  to  supposed  party  expediency  and 
without  general  discussion.  This  movement  has  re¬ 
ceived  more  impetus  from  the  advocacy  of  Mr.  Bryan 

76425—9543 


9 


than  from  any  other  cause  during  the  half  century 
since  the  war.  And  yet,  when  Mr.  Bryan,  with  the 
responsibilities  of  office  upon  him  as  a  Member  of  Con¬ 
gress,  proposed  his  idea  of  an  amendment  to  the  Con¬ 
stitution  for  this  purpose  in  1894,  he  left  it  for  each 
State  to  decide  whether  it  would  elect  United  States 
Senators  by  the  old  method  or  the  new.  All  the  States 
-which  framed  the  Constitution  and  all  those  that  can 
reckon  a  quarter  of  a  century  to  their  lives,  in  selecting 
men  who  have  shed  the  greatest  honor  upon  their  re¬ 
spective  Commonwealths,  have  invariably  named  them 
from  the  membership  of  the  United  States  Senate.  No 
method  of  electing  Senators  could  add  to  that  glorious 
list.  It  has  been  said  that  governors  of  States  furnish 
an  example  to  the  contrary,  but  it  is  the  history  of  gov¬ 
ernors  that  they  are  in  for  a  short  time.  They  rarely 
succeed  themselves,  and  if  they  do,  only  once.  I  do  not 
know  that  there  is  on  record  a  single  instance  of  a  gov¬ 
ernor  who  has  been  ten  years  in  the  service  of  his  State. 
Every  Senator  knowrs  that  the  value  of  a  member  of 
this  body,  if  he  is  fit  to  be  a  member  of  it,  increases 
with  the  years.  Every  Senator  also  knows  that  in 
popular  elections,  taking  the  governor  as  an  example, 
covering  the  whole  State,  the  second  term  would  be  the 
limit  of  the  senatorial  life  of  anyone,  no  matter  how 
distinguished.  Our  Websters,  our  Clays,  our  Cal¬ 
houns,  with  all  their  genius  for  public  life  and  popular 
leadership,  owed  their  influence  upon  the  policies  of 
parties  and  the  legislation  of  the  Republic  to  long  ex¬ 
perience  in  the  Senate.  The  results  of  the  primary 
laws  have  demonstrated  that  the  United  States  Senator 
who  comes  here  under  the  new  system  would  in  a  vast 
majority  of  cases  be  the  choice  of  a  plurality,  and, 
therefore,  *a  minority  candidate.  In  States  where  one 
party  is  sufficiently  in  the  ascendant  to  make  an  elec¬ 
tion  certain,  candidates  would  be  as  numerous  as  the 
ambitions  of  the  citizens,  and  the  successful  one  on  the 
plurality  might  represent  only  a  tenth  of  the  electorate. 

7G425— 0543 


10 


The  favorite  of  the  great  cities  would  always  prevent 
the  success  of  a  candidate  from  the  country.  In  many 
States,  where  party  discipline  and  organization  have 
been  submerged  by  the  primary,  races  or  religions  com¬ 
bine  and  by  their  united  force,  as  against  the  scattered 
results  of  the  general  electorate,  secure  the  necessary 
plurality  for  one  of  their  race  or  religion.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  pretense  that  during  the  long  life  of  our 
Government  a  Senator  has  ever  been  placed  in  this 
body  because  of  race  or  religion.  I  do  not  share  in 
this  distrust  of  the  legislatures.  Our  several  Common¬ 
wealths  have  wisely  legislated  for  the  interest  of  the 
family,  of  property,  of  liberty.  I  do  not  assent  to  the 
proposition  that  representative  government  has  the  dis¬ 
trust  of  the  people. 

The  Athenian  Assembly  was  the  ideal  of  popular 
government.  I  stood  once  upon  the  rocky  platform 
from  which  Demosthenes  addressed  the  voters  of 
Athens.  There  were  300,000  slaves  and  10,000  citizens. 
Those  10,000  easily  gathered  upon  the  plain  in  front  of 
the  orator.  He  won  from  his  audience  the  approval 
of  the  measures  which  he  proposed  against  his  an¬ 
tagonists  because  of  his  eloquence  and  his  ability  to 
fire  the  popular  imagination,  stir  the  popular  enthusi¬ 
asm,  and,  through  them,  influence  for  the  moment  popu¬ 
lar  judgment.  By  holding  up  the  raw  head  and 
bloody  bones  of  Philip  of  Macedon  he  swept  away  all 
opposition,  while  Philip  of  Macedon  had  no  purpose 
such  as  Demosthenes  charged.  We  all  know  the  ap¬ 
peals  which  can  move  a  popular  audience.  A  war 
speech  and  the  bloody  shirt  had  their  influence  for 
twenty-five  years  after  Appomattox.  When  the  new 
generation  of  voters  came  upon  the  stage  these  appeals 
meant  nothing  to  them,  and  the  campaign  orators  had 
to  write  new  speeches  upon  new  issues  or  else  retire 
from  the  platform,  as  many  of  them  did,  because  they 
could  not  comprehend  the  new  issues.  For  twenty-five 
years  more  the  operation  of  the  railroads  was  an  effec- 

76425—9543 


11 


tive  rallying  cry.  But  legislation  has  been  perfected 
for  the  control  of  the  railroads  by  providing  penalties 
for  abuse  and  conferring  such  absolute  power  upon  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  and  the  Commerce 
Court  that  the  Government  is  the  paramount  member 
of  the  directorate  of  every  railroad  in  the  United  States, 
and  that  has  ceased  to  be  the  rallying  cry.  Next,  it  was 
the  corporations.  Again,  legislation  has  largely  cured 
corporate  evils.  The  Sherman  antitrust  law,  strength¬ 
ened  by  the  decisions  of  the  courts,  and  the  corporation- 
tax  law,  exposing  every  secret  of  every  corporation  to 
the  Government  and  through  the  Government  to  the 
people,  furnish  power  on  the  one  hand  to  the  Govern¬ 
ment  and  that  publicity  on  the  other  which  makes  cor¬ 
porate  iniquities  exceedingly  difficult  and  punishment 
swift  and  sure. 

Now  a  Chautauqua  audience  can  be  raised  to  frenzied 
heights  of  rage  by  picturing  to  them  that  they  are  the 
slaves  of  the  interests.  The  interests  are  vague,  but 
the  more  shadowy,  like  the  ghost,  the  more  terrible. 
Of  course  the  Athenian  example  is  impossible  with 
100,000,000  people,  but  the  whole  theory  of  demo¬ 
cratic  government  in  its  evolution  in  Europe  and  in 
America  is  to  escape  on  the  one  side  from  the  arbitrary 
power  of  the  autocrat,  backed  up  by  control  of  the 
army,  the  navy,  the  treasury,  and  taxes,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  to  devise  processes  by  which  the  passions  of 
the  hour  shall  not  crystallize  into  legislation  without 
plenty  of  time  for  deliberation  and  calm  judgment. 
In  a  sense  every  form  of  representative  government 
may  be  called  distrust  of  the  people.  Wherever  a  meas¬ 
ure  must  take  its  chances  first  with  the  Lower  House 
and  then  with  the  Upper  House  and  then  again  in 
running  the  gauntlet  must  escape  the  club  of  the  veto 
of  the  Executive  every  step  is  distrust  of  popular  gov¬ 
ernment.  But  it  is  a  false  idea  to  say  that  such  dis¬ 
trust  means  lack  of  confidence  in  the  people  or  means 
defying  the  popular  will.  It  is  simply  that  where  the 

76425—9543 


12 


great  mass  of  the  population  are  engaged  in  industrial 
pursuits,  which  absorb  their  minds  and  time,  they  must 
necessarily  select  from  among  their  own  number  those 
whom  they  think  best  fitted  for  the  tasks  upon  whom 
they  devolve,  as  President  or  as  Senator  or  as  Repre¬ 
sentative  or  as  governor  or  as  member  of  the  legisla¬ 
ture,  the  perfection  of  measures  and  the  enactment  of 
laws  which  are  for  the  best  interests  of  the  people. 

I  have  received  many  letters  since  I  introduced  my 
amendment  indicating  the  trend  of  popular  thought, 
and  many  editorials  not  proper  to  be  read  in  the  Senate. 
Some  of  them  go  to  an  extreme  which  ought  to  please 
that  eloquent  advocate  of  popular  government,  the  dis¬ 
tinguished  Senator  from  Oregon  [Mr.  Bourne],  and 
his  recently  organized  salvation  army.  [Laughter.] 
They  say,  “ Abolish  the  Senate.  It  is  no  further  of 
any  use.  It  was  all  very  well  when  there  were  no  rail¬ 
roads,  no  telegraphs,  and  no  telephones,  or  morning 
and  evening  papers,  to  have  a  Senate  to  hold  in  check 
the  House  until  the  people  could  be  heard  from;  but 
now,  with  all  these  means  of  instantaneous  and  intel¬ 
ligent  information,  the  people  are  informed  every  day, 
can  reach  their  immediate  Representatives  every  hour, 
and  they  need  no  protection  by  a  conservative  and 
critical  body  elected  for  a  longer  term  and  with  se¬ 
curer  hold  of  office.”  Others  say,  “  In  amending  the 
Constitution,  so  amend  it  that  no  representative  of  the 
interests  can  be  a  Senator.”  They  define  the  interests 
as  every  man  who,  in  his  personal  business  or  in  any 
employment  he  may  have,  is  interested  in  legislation. 
They  bar  out  everyone  who,  directly  or  indirectly,  may 
be  affected  by  the  tariff.  They  bar  out  all  who  are 
counsel  for  those  who  may  be  affected  by  the  tariff. 
They  bar  out  all  stockholders,  bondholders,  and  counsel 
of  corporations.  They  bar  out  labor  unions.  They 
reduce  the  opportunities  for  choice  by  this  process  of 
elimination  until,  if  they  ultimately  succeed,  the  United 
States  Senate  will  be  composed  entirely  of  undertakers, 

764?^ — 0543 


13 


whose  profits  are  in  the  increasing  number  of  those  who 
die,  [Laughter.] 

There  is  a  vast  amount  of  humbug  about  this  talk  of 
the  interests.  I  have  been  a  conspicuous  victim  of  it. 
I  have  been  most  of  my  life  in  the  railway  service,  and 
also  active  in  public  affairs.  I  am  proud  of  the  fact 
that  while  president  of  the  then  greatest  railroad  in  the 
country  my  State  unanimously  presented  me  for  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  United  States  in  the  national  convention. 
I  decided  never  to  sever  nor  deny  my  business  associa¬ 
tions.  It  is  an  insult  to  the  2,000,000  men  who  are  in 
the  railway  service  for  one  of  them  to  admit  directly  or 
indirectly  that  it  is  impossible  for  a  railway  man  to 
serve  the  public  as  well  as  a  farmer,  or  a  manufacturer, 
or  a  lawyer,  or  a  merchant,  or  a  doctor,  or  a  minister, 
or  a  mechanic.  I  have  found  no  difficulty  in  serving  in 
the  Senate  under  the  administrations  of  President 
McKinley,  President  Roosevelt,  and  President  Taft  in 
supporting,  by  voice  and  vote,  every  administration 
measure  of  President  McKinley,  President  Roosevelt, 
and  President  Taft,  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  railway 
man  in  the  public  service  is  uncommonly  anxious  to 
prove  that  the  interests  of  his  constituents,  the  people, 
are  his  paramount  duty.  But  we  all  know  that  it  has 
never  been  considered  any  discredit  for  a  Member  of 
Congress  who  is  either  a  manufacturer,  a  miner,  a 
farmer,  or  an  importing  merchant  to  actively  labor  for 
such  modifications  of  a  tariff  bill  as  may  be  in  the  in¬ 
terests  of  the  business  or  occupation  to  which  he  be¬ 
longs,  or  a  labor  member  to  work  for  labor  legislation. 

There  is  one  view  of  this  proposed  change  in  the 
Constitution  which  has  not  received  the  attention  it 
deserves.  It  is  said  that  legislatures  are  more  easily 
influenced  by  money  consideration  than  popular  elec¬ 
tions.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  primary  contests 
for  United  States  Senator,  which  are  the  equivalent  of 
a  popular  election,  there  have  been  expended  sums  of 
money  so  vast  that  they  are  beyond  anything  ever 

76425—9543 


14 


charged  or  dreamed  of  in  legislatures.  The  record  of 
the  State  legislatures  in  the  election  of  Senators  for 
122  years  is  singularly  clear  of  malign  influences.  But 
the  critical  situation  is  that  which  would  be  created  in 
cases  of  contested  elections.  As  it  is  now  the  Senate, 
in  judging  of  the  qualifications  of  its  members,  has  a 
very  plain  and  simple  duty.  The  doings  of  a  repre¬ 
sentative  body  of  limited  numbers  are  easily  inquired 
into  and  the  Senate  committee  always  has  the  assistance 
of  committees  of  the  legislature,  of  grand  juries,  and 
of  prosecuting  attorneys.  But  in  a  State-wide  election 
for  United  States  Senator  the  happenings  at  every 
polling  place  would  become  a  matter  of  charges  and  of 
investigation.  We  all  know  that  the  taking  of  testi¬ 
mony  in  those  contests  generally  occupies  a  session  and 
sometimes  the  whole  term  of  the  member.  There  are 
4,668  election  districts  in  the  State  of  New  York  and 
a  proportionate  number  in  every  other  State,  accord¬ 
ing  to  population.  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  in 
many  of  these  election  districts  there  is  always  a  large 
expenditure  of  money  in  the  purchase  of  votes.  The 
scandals  of  Adams  County,  Ohio,  now  under  investiga¬ 
tion,  where  2,000  of  the  5,000  voters  have  already  been 
convicted,  is  of  course  a  rare  case  of  the  corrupt  use  of 
money.  But  the  Ohio  papers  of  both  parties  say  that 
while  not  in  so  large  a  degree,  yet  to  a  certain  degree, 
such  conditions  exist  not  in  whole  counties,  but  in  city 
wards  and  county  precincts  scattered  through  the 
State.  If  the  election  of  a  United  States  Senator  had 
been  according  to  the  new  proposition,  the  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections  would  be  instructed  to 
investigate  these  charges,  if  not  before,  yet  immediately 
upon,  the  taking  of  his  seat  by  the  new  Senator,  Atlee 
Pomerene.  There  have  been  over  400  contested-elec¬ 
tion  cases  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Four- 
fifths  of  them  have  been  notoriously  decided  by  par¬ 
tisan  considerations.  In  every  case,  if  there  is  a  shadow 
of  a  doubt,  the  doubt  is  in  favor  of  the  contestant  who 

76425—9543 


15 


belongs  to  the  majority.  If  the  Senate  was  close,  as 
the  times  indicate  it  will  be  within  an  early  period,  the 
majority  would  have  committees  probing  into  every 
election  district  in  States  which  had  elected  a  Senator 
who  would  help  in  turning  the  minority  of  this  body 
into  a  majority  against  its  sitting  members.  The  con¬ 
test  would  be  interminable,  the  situation  deplorable, 
and  the  decision,  whatever  it  might  be,  partisan,  or 
at  least  so  charged  and  generally  believed. 

The  doctrine  has  been  advanced  here  by  all  those  who 
have  expressed  an  opinion  in  opposition  to  the  Senator 
from  Illinois  retaining  his  seat  that  where  there  is  any 
bribery  proven  the  seat  of  the  Senator  must  be  vacated. 
Under  that  doctrine  the  record  of  Adams  County 
would  only  have  to  be  presented  to  the  Senate  and  the 
new  Senator  from  Ohio  would  not  be  permitted  to  take 
his  seat.  The  whole  matter  would  be  remitted  back  to 
the  State  of  Ohio  for  another  popular  election,  with 
possibly  a  repetition  of  the  first  result. 

We  all  know,  and  we  are  all  proud  of  the  fact,  that 
the  lobby  has  disappeared  from  Washington.  When 
I  was  here  during  the  Civil  War  the  hotels  were  filled 
with  lobbyists,  and  scandals  charged  against  individual 
Senators  and  Members  of  the  House  were  so  current 
as  to  be  common  and  excite  no  comment.  The  same 
was  true  for  a  decade  at  least  following  the  Civil  War. 
But  to-day  there  is  no  breath  of  suspicion  against  the 
vote  by  which  the  great  measures  of  the  last  twenty 
years,  affecting  as  they  have  in  the  most  vital  way  the 
wealth,  the  productive  power,  the  capital,  and  the  labor 
of  the  country,  have  been  enacted  into  law. 

Two  sets  of  States,  though  having  entirely  different 
interests,  are  cordially  united  in  pressing  this  legisla¬ 
tion.  They  are  the  new  States,  with  small  populations 
compared  with  the  older  ones,  and  what  were  formely 
known  as  the  slave  States  of  the  Union.  This  is  the 
only  measure  on  which  is  unfortunately  revived  the 
u  solid  South.”  I  warn  each  of  them  that  they  are  pry- 
76425—9543 


16 


ing  off  the  lid  from  Pandora’s  box.  They  are  letting 
loose  the  devils  to  pursue  them  with  increasing  aggres¬ 
siveness,  force,  and  strength  during  the  coming  years. 
Among  a  people  who  regard  with  such  extreme  rever¬ 
ence,  and  I  might  say  awe,  their  Constitution,  as  do  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  sentiment  is  a  tremendous 
factor  in  the  preservation  of  existing  conditions. 
Change  existing  conditions  and  sentiment  is  buried  by 
the  overwhelming  force  of  interest.  The  goal  of  all 
ambitious  States  has  always  been  power.  In  the  for¬ 
mation  of  the  Republic  and  the  compromises  which 
brought  about  the  Federal  Union,  power  was  surren¬ 
dered  by  the  more  populous  States  to  the  less  populous 
in  representation  in  the  Senate,  and  surrendered  also 
to  the  slave-holding  States  in  representation  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  But  we  propose  deliberately 
to  raise  this  Frankenstein  and  send  him  upon  his  resist¬ 
less  way. 

In  the  debates  in  that  marvelous  convention  which 
framed  the  Constitution — those  wise  men,  who  were 
actuated  by  only  one  motive,  and  that  the  formation  of 
an  indestructible  union  of  sovereign  States  into  an 
all-powerful  republic — two  things  were  unanimously 
agreed  to,  one  that  each  State  in  its  sovereign  capac¬ 
ity  should  have  equal  representation  of  its  sovereignty 
by  two  ambassadors  called  Senators  in  the  Federal  Sen¬ 
ate,  and  the  other  that  the  corporate  representation  of 
the  State — the  legislature — should  elect  these  two  am¬ 
bassadors.  They  thus  preserved  on  the  one  hand  the 
equal  sovereignty  of  all  the  States,  large  and  small, 
through  equal  representation  in  this  branch  of  the 
F ederal  Government,  and  on  the  other,  to  prevent  grow¬ 
ing  populations  in  some  States  from  endeavoring  to 
disturb  the  equality  of  representation  in  the  upper 
House,  they  selected  State  legislatures  as  the  medium 
through  which  the  voice  of  the  State  should  be  ex¬ 
pressed.  This  process  has  impressed  with  equal  won¬ 
der  and  admiration  De  Tocqueville,  Gladstone,  and 

76425—9543 


17 


Bryce,  the  three  greatest  writers  upon  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  In  fact,  when  French  statesmen 
were  framing  the  machinery  for  the  third  Republic  of 
France  they  decided  that  one  of  the  best  means  of 
avoiding  the  rocks  upon  which  the  other  two  had  been 
wrecked  was  to  have  a  senate  elected  upon  lines  similar 
to  those  which  exist  in  our  Constitution.  They  had 
no  States,  but  they  created  artificial  States.  They  di¬ 
vided  France  into  senatorial  districts,  combining  in 
each  district  a  number  of  districts  which  were  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  popular  chamber.  They  fixed  a  long  term 
for  their  senators.  In  the  senate  district,  when  a  va¬ 
cancy  occurs,  the  members  of  the  lower  house  from 
that  district,  the  mayors  of  the  cities  and  of  the  vil¬ 
lages,  meet  in  convention  and  elect  a  senator.  French 
statesmen  of  to-day  with  whom  I  have  talked  claim 
that  many  a  time  in  the  nearly  forty  years  of  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  the  present  Republic,  this  check  by  such  a  senate 
upon  the  turbulent  passions  of  the  hour  of  the  lower 
house  has  given  the  people  time  to  think  and  saved  the 
Republic  from  ruin. 

Now,  as  to  the  Southern  States  and  their  anxiety  to 
preserve  their  present  exclusive  election  laws:  The 
average  number  of  voters  required  to  elect  a  Member  of 
Congress  in  the  State  of  New  York  is  38,408.  The 
average  number  in  the  whole  United  States  is  31,196. 
The  average  number  of  voters  for  Congressman  in  the 
nine  States  of  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Florida,  Georgia, 
Louisiana,  Mississippi,  South  Carolina,  Texas,  and 
Virginia  is  8,266.  In  Mississippi  3,000  elect  a  Congress¬ 
man;  in  South  Carolina,  4,341;  in  Georgia,  5,072;  and 
in  Arkansas,  5,886.  Now,  then,  thirty-eight  States  of 
the  American  Union  have  a  population  of  45,780,297, 
while  ten  States  have  a  population  of  45,860,900;  and 
yet  these  ten  States  have  twenty  Senators  and  the  thirty- 
eight  States,  with  practically  the  same  population,  have 
seventy-six.  The  four  contiguous  States  of  Idaho, 
Nevada,  Utah,  and  Wyoming  have  a  population  of 

7G425-  -9543— —3 


18 


926,785.  The  four  States  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
Illinois,  and  Ohio  have  a  population  of  27,184,437. 
On  a  popular  basis  of  representation  by  the  people  these 
four  States  of  Idaho,  Nevada,  Utah,  and  Wyoming 
have  four  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
while  on  the  same  basis  the  States  of  New  York,  Penn¬ 
sylvania,  Illinois,  and  Ohio  have  115  Members  of  the 
House  of  Representatives.  But  in  the  United  States 
Senate  this  927,000  of  population  of  these  four  States 
have  eight  Senators,  while  the  27,184,000  of  the  other 
four  States  have  also  eight  Senators. 

Mr.  BACON.  Mr.  President - 

The  VICE  PRESIDENT.  Will  the  Senator  from 
New  York  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Georgia? 

Mr.  DEPEW.  Certainly. 

Mr.  BACON.  I  do  not  desire  to  interrupt  the  Sena¬ 
tor’s  argument,  but  at  the  same  time  I  do  not  desire  the 
Record  shall  go  abroad  without,  in  a  certain  sense,  an 
issue  upon  one  statement  made  by  the  Senator,  not  di¬ 
rectly  but  by  implication,  in  regard  to  the  number  of 
votes  cast  in  the  South  in  the  election  of  Representa¬ 
tives.  The  implication  is  that  the  vote  is  a  representa¬ 
tion  of  the  population  or  of  those  who  are  the  legal 
voters  or  of  those  who  participate-  in  the  selection  of 
Representatives. 

Mr.  DEPEW.  Of  those  who  are  permitted  to  vote. 

Mr.  BACON.  I  will  say  something  about  that  a 
little  later.  Of  those  who  are  the  legal  voters  in  the 
State,  the  implication  is  that  there  is  a  representation. 
The  fact  is  that  in  those  States  where  there  is  such  a 
small  vote  cast  at  the  regular  election  the  true  election 
is  the  primary  election.  I  will  state,  by  way  of  illus¬ 
tration,  that  in  a  primary  election  in  my  State  where 
there  will  be  between  two  and  three  hundred  thousand 
votes  cast  in  the  primary  election  there  will  be  fifty  or 
sixty  or  seventy  thousand  votes  cast  at  the  regular  elec¬ 
tion,  the  election  provided  by  law.  The  reason  for  that 
is  simply  that  there  is  but  one  political  party  in  the 


70425—9543 


19 


State,  the  other  party  not  even  making  nominations, 
so  that  when  the  contest  between  individuals  who  com¬ 
pete  for  the  nomination  has  been  decided  the  election 
in  November  at  the  date  prescribed  by  law  is  one  in 
which  there  is  no  contest,  and  consequently  no  induce¬ 
ment  for  people  to  go  to  the  polls. 

Now  as  to  the  question  as  to  who  are  permitted  to 
vote  I  will  state  to  the  Senator  as  to  my  State,  and  I 
presume  it  is  true  as  to  other  States  equally,  that  no 
man  is  denied  the  right  to  vote  who  has  the  qualifica-  • 
tions  under  the  law  to  vote ;  that  there  is  no  obstruction 
whatever  to  any  man’s  voting  who  has  the  right  to  vote; 
and  the  question  of  his  right  to  vote  is  one  which  is  to 
be  settled  by  the  courts  and  not  by  the  suggestions 
which  the  Senator  makes  now1  in  a  side  remark  as  to 
who  are  permitted  to  vote,  implying  that  those  are  not 
permitted  to  vote  who  are  entitled  to  vote. 

I  do  not  desire  to  enter  into  that  discussion  now,  and 
I  did  not  rise  for  that  purpose.  The  only  purpose  I 
had  was  that  in  the  very  interesting  speech  of  the  Sen¬ 
ator,  and  the  very  strong  speech,  the  suggestion  made 
by  him  as  to  the  number  of  those  who  vote  in  those 
States  might  not  go  out  as  being  even  by  implication 
a  statement  of  the  fact  that  they  are  a  representation 
of  those  who,  in  fact,  take  part  in  the  choosing  of 
Representatives.  They  are  but  a  very  small  part  of 
those  who,  in  fact,  determine  the  question  who  shall  be 
the  Representatives  in  Congress. 

Mr.  DEPEW.  Mr.  President,  not  desiring  any  fur¬ 
ther  interruption  until  I  have  completed  my  speech,  I 
will  simply  say  in  response  to  the  Senator  from  Georgia 
that  what  I  was  really  referring  to  is  the  fact  of  the 
disproportionate  number  of  voters  in  proportion  to  the 
population  in  the  Southern  States  and  in  the  Northern 
States.  In  many  of  the  Southern  States  so  many  elec¬ 
tors  are  disfranchised  that  it  takes  twenty-seven  voters 
in  New  York  to  equal  one  voter  in  a  Southern  State. 
When  an  investigation  is  made  it  will  be  found  that  the 

76425—9543 


20 


same  is  true  of  the  primary,  that  because  of  the  large 
number  disfranchised  the  vote  does  not  correspond  to 
the  population,  as  it  does  in  other  States  where  these 
restrictive  laws  do  not  exist. 

Now,  as  to  the  qualifications  or  disqualifications,  un¬ 
doubtedly  nobody  votes  in  those  States  except  those 
who  are  qualified  by  the  State  laws.  But  who  are  dis¬ 
qualified  ?  We  all  know  the  grandfather  clause,  which 
is  still  in  existence  in  many  of  the  States.  But  there 
are  others.  For  instance,  there  is  the  educational  clause. 

Mr.  BACON.  Found  also  in  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  BAILEY.  It  ought  to  be  found  in  all  of  them. 

Mr.  DEPEW.  But  in  its  application  very  different 
in  Massachusetts.  In  that  State  the  voter  is  asked 
to  demonstrate  his  power  to  read  and  write,  but  in  the 
States  where  the  Negro  is  disfranchised  the  educational 
clause  is  used  by  the  canvassing  officers  to  apply  tests 
which  few  citizens  could  meet.  A  very  interesting  story 
was  told  me,  and  sometimes  an  illustration  shows  the 
situation  better  than  an  argument.  This  story  was  told 
me  by  a  friend  of  mine,  a  southerner,  a  Yale  man,  and 
therefore  entitled  to  belief  on  all  questions.  He  said 
that  at  a  precinct  in  his  county  a  negro  preacher  came 
up  to  vote.  The  canvassing  officer  said,  “  You  know 
under  our  law  you  have  to  read  and  write.”  “Well,” 
he  said,  “  I  wTas  educated  at  Howard  University  and 
at  the  Howard  Theological  School;  I  can  read  and 
write.”  “  Do  you  understand  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States?  That  is  another  requisite.”  “Well,” 
said  the  clergyman,  “I  know  it  by  heart,  and  think  I 
understand  it.”  “Well,”  said  the  canvasser,  “under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  you  must  get  out 
a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  before  you  can  be  permitted 
to  cast  a  vote,  and  do  you  know  what  a  habeas  corpus 
is?”  The  minister  answered,  “No,  Mr.  Canvasser;  I 
do  not  know  what  a  habeas  corpus  is,  but  I  do  know 
that  a  negro  can  not  vote  in  the  State  of  Mississippi.” 
[Laughter.] 

76425—9543 


21 


Parties  are  always  seeking  paramount  issues.  The 
great  leader  of  the  Democratic  Party  made  this  ques¬ 
tion  of  changing  the  method  of  the  election  of  United 
States  Senators,  as  he  thought,  a  paramount  issue.  It 
failed  to  materialize  as  he  imagined  it  would,  because 
there  was  no  popular  response,  and  there  is  none  to¬ 
day.  But  the  glaring  inequality  exhibited  by  the  fig¬ 
ures  which  I  present  are  a  firm  foundation  for  a  para¬ 
mount  issue.  The  resistless  cry  from  the  stump  and 
from  the  press  will  be,  “  Less  than  a  million  of  people 
shall  not  be  permitted  to  neutralize  and  possibly  de¬ 
feat  the  wishes  of  over  27,000,000  citizens.  This  is  a 
government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the 
people,  and  here  is  a  small  oligarchy  blocking  the 
progress  and  defeating  the  wishes  of  an  overwhelming 
majority.  We  have  paved  the  way  for  this  reform.  It 
took  us,  the  people,  122  years  to  get  rid  of  the  fetish 
of  the  sacredness  of  the  Constitution.  Now  we  have 
buried  that  bugaboo,  and  the  people,  having  come  into 
their  own  in  part,  must  regain  the  whole  of  the  power 
to  which  they  are  entitled.”  What  are  our  friends  who 
are  so  gayly  and  hilariously  pushing  this  proposition 
going  to  answer  before  indignant  multitudes  to  this 
natural  sequence  ?  The  next  slogan  for  popular  appeal 
will  be  “  Mend  the  Senate  or  end  it.” 

I  remember  before  the  Civil  War  and  before  the  aboli¬ 
tion  of  slavery  was  advocated  by  any  except  a  mere 
handful  of  abolitionists  that  one  of  the  issues  hotly  de¬ 
bated  and  earnestly  pressed  was  to  take  away  from  the 
slave  States  the  representation  to  which  they  were  enti¬ 
tled  in  Congress  because  of  their  slaves.  This  agitation 
made  no  headway  whatever,  and  was  met  invariably  by 
the  sentimental  answer  of  the  people  that  this  part  of 
the  Constitution  was  agreed  to  by  the  fathers,  and  they 
would  not  go  back  on  them.  Every  intelligent  student 
of  the  present  rapid  trend  toward  popular  government 
must  see  what  would  happen  when  this  sentimental  bar 

7 6425 — 0543 


22 


of  the  States  being  represented  by  two  Senators  instead 
of  by  the  people  in  the  United  States  Senate  is  thrown 
down.  The  initiative,  the  referendum,  and  the  recall 
are  but  symptoms  of  the  times.  That  the  people  will 
have  their  way,  because  they,  and  they  alone,  are  the 
Government,  is  the  underlying  spirit  of  our  institutions, 
of  our  newest  State  Constitutions,  and  of  our  progres¬ 
sive  laws.  Skillful  agitation  seizes  upon  every  pretext 
and  eagerly  grasps  and  enlarges  every  opportunity  for 
appeal  to  the  passions  in  an  advancement  of  its  pur¬ 
poses.  The  next  cry  will  necessarily  be,  “  Why  not  elect 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  by  popular  vote? 
Why  not  elect  the  Federal  judiciary  everywhere  by 
popular  vote?”  Unless  we  admit  that  the  fathers  made, 
a  mistake,  and  a  grave  one,  in  throwing  these  restric¬ 
tions  upon  the  immediate  expression  of  the  passion  of 
the  hour  into  legislation  or  decision,  there  is  no  legiti¬ 
mate  answer  to  such  a  proposition.  A  constitutional 
convention  can  abrogate  the  promise  of  equality  of  the 
States  in  the  Senate  in  the  present  Constitution.  Let 
the  wave  rise  high  enough  and  thirty  millions  of  people 
will  not  consent  to  have  their  will  thwarted  and  their 
laws  enacted  by  five  millions.  In  the  jealousies  of  the 
colonies,  large  and  small,  it  was  easy  to  make  this  com¬ 
promise,  because  for  the  formation  of  the  Republic  it 
was  necessary  to  have  all  the  colonies  in  as  sovereign 
States.  Rut  we  have  demonstrated  by  the  most  gigan¬ 
tic,  the  most  bloody,  and  the  most  costly  war  of  history 
that  no  State  can  go  out  of  the  Union,  and  the  effort  on 
the  part  of  these  sparsely  populated  States  to  resist  by 
force  their  taking  their  share  in  legislation  in  the  upper 
House  as  they  do  in  the  lower  House — in  proportion  to 
their  population — would  be  treated  with  scorn  and  con¬ 
tempt.  Majorities  are  never  sentimental  and,  when 
they  believe  they  are  right,  never  merciful.  “  The 
power  is  ours  by  nature  and  by  right,  and  we  will  come 
into  our  own,”  will  be  the  cry  of  the  majorities  in  the 
future,  and  there  is  no  logical  answer  to  the  claim. 

76425—9543 


23 


I  have  spoken  thus  earnestly  from  profound  con¬ 
viction.  Certainly  no  Senator  can  be  freer  from  self¬ 
ish  motives  than  I  am.  This  legislation  can  affect  my 
career  in  the  future  neither  one  way  nor  the  other.  I 
have  the  profoundest  reverence,  which  no  language  can 
adequately  express,  for  this  wonderful  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  My  twelve  years’  service  in  this  body 
has  increased  the  life-long  admiration  I  had  for  it,  and 
to  that  admiration  from  this  long  association  with  its 
members  has  come  the  tenderest  affection.  I  do  not 
object  to  changes,  even  revolutionary  changes,  when 
the  reasons  for  them  are  adequate  and  when  the  trans¬ 
parent  evils  from  action  are  not  greater  than  the 
prophesied  good. 

The  Senators  who  have  been  reelected  and  the  new 
ones  who  have  been  chosen  by  the  legislatures  of  their 
several  States  this  year  are  selections  which  could  not 
be  improved  upon  by  any  new  method.  Of  our  present 
Members  Massachusetts  returns  here  one  of  the  most 
brilliant  and  able  statesmen  who  ever  represented  that 
Commonwealth,  Mr.  Lodge;  Maryland  gives  us  back 
that  great  lawyer  and  resourceful  debater,  Senator 
Rayner  ;  Minnesota  returns  one  of  our  hardest  working 
and  most  valuable  Members,  Senator  Clapp;  North 
Dakota  honors  itself  and  strengthens  the  Senate  by  giv¬ 
ing  back  to  us  one  who  has  rendered  his  State  and 
country  such  distinguished  service,  Senator  McCum- 
ber;  Pennsylvania  returns  to  us  a  journalist  and  a  busi¬ 
ness  man  who  has  proved  a  most  useful  Senator,  Sena¬ 
tor  Oliver  ;  Texas  continues  in  her  service,  and  that  of 
the  Republic,  a  Senator  who  has  been  so  long  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  leader  upon  the  floor,  Senator  Culberson  ;  Utah 
continues  in  the  Senate  one  of  the  ablest  constitutional 
lawyers  in  this  body,  Senator  Sutherland;  Vermont 
strengthens  the  ranks  of  the  practical  business  men  who 
are  needed  in  legislation  for  a  business  country  like  the 
United  States,  Senator  Page;  while  Wisconsin  sends  a 
statesman  who  has  repeatedly  proved  by  popular  and 

76425—9543 


24 


primary  elections  that  he  is  the  choice  of  his  Common¬ 
wealth.  While  he  and  I  would  seldom  agree  upon  pub¬ 
lic  questions,  yet  there  is  bo  abler  representative  of  the 
views  and  policies  entertained  by  him  and  large  num¬ 
bers  of  others  than  Senator  La  Follette.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  new  Members.  We  have  from  California, 
Judge  Works;  from  Connecticut,  ex-Gov.  McLean; 
from  Indiana,  ex-candidate  for  Vice  President  on  the 
Democratic  ticket,  Mr.  Kern;  from  Maine,  that  bril¬ 
liant  lawyer,  Charles  F.  Johnson;  from  Michigan,  a 
statesman  tried  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  Mr. 
Townsend;  from  Mississippi,  the  brilliant  leader  in 
the  House  for  many  years  of  the  Democratic  Party, 
John  Sharp  Williams;  from  Missouri,  James  A. 
Reed;  from  Nebraska,  Gilbert  M.  Hitchcock;  from 
North  Dakota,  Asle  J.  Gronna;  from  Ohio,  Lieut. 
Gov.  Atlee  Pomerene;  from  Washington,  Miles 
Poindexter  ;  and  from  Rhode  Island,  Henry  F. 
Lippitt. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  a  list  of  Senators  selected  to 
serve  for  the  next  six  years  in  this  body  by  the  legis¬ 
latures  of  their  States,  and  no  one  will  assert  that  if  the 
elections  had  been  of  choice  by  State  conventions  or 
directly  by  the  people  they  would  have  been  either 
better  or  abler. 

Most  of  the  so-called  radical  legislation  of  the  past 
ten  years  has  been  really  conservative  legislation.  It 
has  been  the  correction  of  admitted  evils,  the  enacting 
into  law  of  measures  for  things  unknown  by  previous 
generations  but  vital  for  the  present  and  the  future  in 
the  development  of  the  country.  But  here  in  this  prop¬ 
osition  we  are  called  upon  to  disregard  the  overwhelm¬ 
ing  lessons  of  the  past  and  enter  upon  an  untried  ex¬ 
periment,  to  adopt  a  theory  which  opens  the  door  for 
innumerable  possibilities  of  danger  to  the  sovereignty 
of  the  States  and  wise  conservatism  in  the  administra¬ 
tion  of  government. 

76425—9543 


o 


